OK so I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose an explanation for the "coincidence":
It has been known for decades that asteroidal resources are a potential material resource bonanza and also potential kinetic weapons. The fact that it has taken until recently for private enterprise to enter the picture<http://singularityhub.com/2013/02/19/interview-diamandis-planetary-resources-to-claim-high-value-asteroids-with-robotic-beacons/> should not blind us to the fact that detailed plans for asteroid husbandry have existed for decades and that the spy satellite technology, now being used by private asteroid prospecting, as been in use by government agencies for decades -- including the military. We don't need to hypothesis exotic technologies to posit the potential "black project" existence of asteroid husbandry technology that has enjoyed a decades-long maturation period. The technologies existed, in unclassified form, as early as the Apollo program. This is all that is necessary to posit the "means" and "opportunity" (not the motive) for an artificial "coincidence" between an earth-approaching asteroid and an artificially controlled meteor: If advanced spy satellite technology had been used to do asteroid prospecting over the last few decades, it is easy to imagine a much greater precision assay of earth approaching asteroids exists in the "black" than is known -- or at least admittedly known -- by unclassified sources. This provides the "opportunity" in that it may have been known many years, possibly decades, in advance that a 50m asteroid was going to pass within GSO of Earth on February 15, 2013. As to means, if a nuclear power plant and/or large solar array were placed on an earth-approaching meteoroid of modest mass, simply throwing chunks of rock off its surface -- particularly while at apogee -- could provide sufficient delta-v over the course of years to direct it to enter earth's atmosphere at a low angle of incidence (thereby guaranteeing no substantial serious ground effect), and do so in such a way that its entry would approximately coincide with the near pass of the asteroid. Now for the motive: In intelligence agencies (yes I have had dealings including working in a SCIF for months under daily review by the Joint Chiefs and Jasons on an 'imminent nuclear war' priority project, so I do know a little) there is something called a "signature" which provides a "plausible deniability" cover to the mundanes while ensuring the message gets through to the opposing side's intelligence agencies. Such a statistical anomaly involving potential weaponry fits the bill of a "signature". The message is simply this: We have sufficient control of the asteroid's little brother that you might be wise to consider the possibility that we have control of the asteroid. Remaining questions regarding the motive (as in means, motive and opportunity) are: Why Russia? Why now? On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > A particularly relevant passage for those who get stuck on "clustering" of > random events (ToE: Theory of Everything): > > (R) Random universe. Actually there is a much simpler way of obtaining a > ToE. Consider an infinite > sequence of random bits (fair coin tosses). It is easy to see that any > finite pattern, i.e., any finite > binary sequence, occurs (actually infinitely often) in this string. Now > consider our observable universe > quantized at e.g. Planck level, and code the whole space-time universe > into a huge bit string. If the > universe ends in a big crunch, this string is finite. (Think of a digital > high resolution 3D movie of the > universe from the big bang to the big crunch). This big string also > appears somewhere in our random > string, hence our random string is a perfect ToE. This is reminiscent of > the Boltzmann brain idea that > in a sufficiently large random universe, *there exist low entropy > regions*that resemble our own universe > and/or brain (observer) [17, Sec.3.8]. > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> All this talk about Pi and monkeys seems not to be really taking hold of >> some minds here at vortex. Let me suggest if you are going to founder on >> the rocks of algorithmic randomness/information/probability theory, you go >> for guidance to the world's foremost authority (IMHO), Marcus Hutter and >> read his relatively accessible "A Complete Theory of Everything (Will Be >> Subjective)" <http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/3/4/329>. >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Also, if you read pi carefully and far into the future, it will reveal >>> all of the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe. >>> Of course, you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of >>> predictions that are utter non sense. >>> >>> Now, you might not find the reference to the future events before they >>> happen because it may take forever to get the information. Remember, every >>> historical event was also there for the reading, but we missed all of them >>> as far as I know. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Harry Veeder <[email protected]> >>> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:36 pm >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured >>> >>> If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete >>> works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a >>> different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the >>> natural language of this different message remains unknown to us? >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> >> I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are >>> >> making >>> when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally >>> typing >>> monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the >>> folio can >>> be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there >>> is >>> already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an >>> impossibility. >>> > >>> > I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive >>> means. >>> > If it never can end and does so without repeating then eventually in >>> > the fullness of infinity every long shot must occur. (actually, only >>> > if it is random. So the monkeys might win out) >>> > And with less frequency, every really really long shot must occur. >>> > >>> > What Monkeys or Pi writing Shakespeare actually implies however makes >>> > lite of just how long the search will go in each case before success, >>> > which is so inconceivably long, the scale of volume of the universe to >>> > Plank length falls impossibly short of conveying the immenseness of >>> > the time it would take in either case compared to say the believed age >>> > of the universe. >>> > >>> > And only after every other book that has or could be written pops up >>> > first, and of course almost but not quite perfect versions would pop >>> > up also. >>> > >>> > Every extra character required will multiply the task of how far you >>> > will need to go through Pi. >>> > >>> > Of course you are right about one thing, in theory it is possible that >>> > it might never occur. >>> > I do not know, does 86 show up in the first 20 digits of Pi? the first >>> > 100 digits? >>> > For that matter does it show up at all? >>> > There is nothing meaning it must, ever. >>> > >>> > But then again that becomes an increasingly improbably longshot the >>> > further you search. >>> > >>> > 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286 >>> > >>> > Ah, didn't take long. >>> > >>> > Actually it is possible that I am all wrong since Pi is not random. >>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXoh6vi6J5U >>> > >>> > Fun video. >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >> I have not seen the video, >>> > You should. >>> > >>> > But it is worth mentioning that non-zoomed in and slowed down versions >>> > do not reveal the activity as far as I can make out. >>> > Which might mean that we the were to be zoomed and slowed we could >>> > check the validity of what the other version shows. >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >
